Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark Explains Why Bush Must Be Impeached

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 02:01 PM
Original message
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark Explains Why Bush Must Be Impeached
Edited on Tue Mar-13-07 02:51 PM by Time for change
Ramsey Clark was the Attorney General in the Lyndon Johnson administration from 1965-1967, where he was best known for his role in the Civil Rights movement, in which he supervised the drafting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

I received an e-mail from him this morning on behalf of ImpeachBush.org, in which he explains why George Bush must be impeached, and urging us to support the March on the Pentagon this Saturday.

On the general issue of impeachment, he notes that:

The authors of the Constitution were serious about impeachment and intended that the carefully prescribed procedures and principles for impeachment written into the text be faithfully executed… No other issue is treated with such detail and care in the Constitution.

They knew the power of impeachment had liberated England from the tyranny of the King. That history described impeachment as “The chief instrument for the preservation of government” and “the most powerful weapon in the political armory, short of civil war.”


Then he goes on to explain several reasons why George Bush must be impeached, some which I summarize here:

To prevent further escalation and expansion of war

The current war in Iraq (and elsewhere) will become embedded and spread to Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan or other nations Bush may attack…

A great American, Robert Drinan… introduced a Bill of Impeachment against Richard Nixon for ordering the bombing of Cambodia in 1973. Cambodia was a neutral nation. This was a murderous crime. Had the Congress acted on that bill, rather than the comparatively minor offense of the Watergate break-in, Presidents after Nixon would have been more cautious about authorizing armed aggression against other nations and George W. Bush might not have dared attack Iraq which posed no threat to the U.S.


To prevent escalation of nuclear arms

George W. Bush will increase U.S. nuclear armaments and missile defense leading to nuclear proliferation, a nuclear arms race, and cold war… Even while Bush threatens Iran and North Korea and warns others that they must not take any action to obtain nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, he is upgrading U.S. nuclear weapons systems and developing a new generation of nuclear weapons primarily for tactical uses in war or to destroy selected targets in foreign countries. This is a direct violation of U.S. obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which the U.S. ratified more than a third of a century ago.


To halt the continuation of torture and other human rights abuses associated with Bush’s War on Terror

Bush will continue to propagandize his War on Terror… creating fear and international tensions that will enable him to violate international laws including the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution of the United States. He will maintain the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and ignore clear international and U.S. Constitutional rights of prisoners there and in secret prisons in other countries. He will continue to authorize torture of prisoners; motivate and cover up violations of the rights of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals using the Patriot Act to obtain confidential information on people illegally, and other vehicles…


To re-establish the rule of law in the United States

Bush will continue to cause, or tolerate serious violations of U.S. law as in the I. Louis Libby case… He will cause and condone the removal of United States Attorneys from office, if they fail to protect political friends of his Administration in violation of law. At least eight U.S. Attorneys have been wrongfully dismissed for political reasons. It is not known how many of the other 84 U.S. Attorneys retained their offices by illegally submitting to political pressure to protect interests of friends of the Bush Administration corrupting the rule of law.


To halt continuing damage to our country

Bush will continue to damage the United States by failing to provide competent government services including medical care for the 20,000-30,000 seriously wounded veterans of his Iraq war even at the flagship Walter Reed Hospital, FEMA services in Louisiana and other Gulf States after hurricane Katrina, and through his own travels in Europe, South America, and elsewhere, to nations where the people do not welcome him, where he is met with angry crowds and requires unprecedented protection…


Concluding remarks

We must make the Members of the House of Representatives become as serious and courageous about the power of impeachment as the Founding Fathers were… I urge you to join the March on the Pentagon on March 17, if at all possible. It can be the turning point to impeachment. I’ve believed for forty years that the October 1967 March on the Pentagon was the turning point to the withdrawal from Vietnam. I felt the power of the desire for peace within the marchers from inside the Pentagon that time. It was palpable and inspiring.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. Ramsey Clark is a national treasure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Yes indeed -- He initially called for Bush's impeachment in January 2003
Why? Because he's "vehemently opposed to killing innocent people because we don't like there leaders".

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/bios/Clark.htm#voi

Imagine having a President with radical views like that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. He certainly is -- very much along the lines of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. k & r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. K & R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
6. Impeach already! Aren't there about 10,000 impeachable offenses by now?
I would think thw pukes would want to initiate impeachment, ACTING like revelation of executive abuse. The Dems better not let them make the first move. The American people are looking for a strong leader (and may I kindly offer up the truly elected Al Gore) and the Dems will look weak if the Pukes initiate action on the quite obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I think that's a slight exaggeration
I don't think that there are much more than 5,000 impeachable offenses, though you could be right, since I lost count long ago.

I agree, we need someone who's willing to speak out. I'll take Gore, Clark, Feingold, Boxer, Edwards, or Kucinich -- and I'm sure I've missed a few.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grannylib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
7. I agree, long overdue, and inadequate, but a good start. They should
ultimately be tried for treason.
But sure, let's start with impeachment. The facts that come out in the wash during any impeachment hearings are bound to lead to evidence of egregious violations of the Constitution and abuse of power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Yes, the most important thing is to start the hearings
The corporate media will be forced to cover them, though they would wish that they could avoid it, and they might even lambast the Dems for doing it, accusing them of revenge and God knows what else. But no matter how much they wish they could avoid it, all the dirty little secrets of the Bush/Cheney administration will come pouring out, and the American people will be outraged. The Dems might even get a fillibuster proof Senate in 08 -- whether or not they get 67 votes in the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
10. Forget Impeachment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Dems in Congress need to start with the AG Gonzo.
Then move on to Cheney and Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Why?
I wouldn't mind that so much if it didn't take too long to get to Bush and Cheney.

But why is it necessary to go for Gonzales first? Why not attack the root of the problem rather than the branches? I'm wouldn't be surprised if Bush found someone just as bad to replace him.

And the other problem IMO with going for Gonzalez first is that, as Ramsey Clark notes in the OP, the longer Bush is in power the more damage he can do, especially with respect to expansion of the war to Iran or and/other countries. What if he nukes Iran while Congress is busy impeaching Gonzales?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. .
:spank:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Homer Wells Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. Kicked and Recommended n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 06:57 AM
Response to Original message
15. Clark was asked why he focuses on the crimes of his own country
When asked why he focuses on the crimes of his own country, instead of those committed by Iraq, Clark says that we, as citizens, need to announce our principles and "force our government to adhere to them. When you see your government violating those principles, you have the highest obligation to correct what your government does, not point the finger at someone else.

http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
16. Thomas Jefferson's view on impeachment
When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1222-31.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC